Top and Bottom Down Approaches in Research

Top and Bottom Down Approaches in Research 1.1 Introduction: The theoretical challenge of managed environments General works in the field of development studies or environmental management typically imitate structural, institutional and political economy analyses. This dissertation however focuses on the theoretical and methodological foundations of an actor-oriented, process-based and social constructionist form of analysis. It also aims to show the usefulness of such an approach for providing new insights into critical areas of empirical enquiry. In the introductory chapter I posed the dilemma confronting change managers and citizens with existing practices of environmental governance reform that are performing inconsistently. My starting point is the premise that experiences of decision-making over environmental management practices have not reflected the intent of smoother transitions and greater legitimacy that a turn to more participative approaches had promised. More democratic methods are not consistently producing more democratic outcomes, at least so are reports from practice warning. Instead, governance reform is experienced as frustrating struggles by actors brought together using ideals of collaborative practice that are frequently proving disappointing in application. The stories that this report recounts are indicative of the type of struggles and indeterminacies more and more encountered by policy actors in addressing issues of society-nature relations. It will be shown that the day-to-day tensions are not well expressed in the languages of social science or practitioners. Are there better ways to conceptualize these problems? Do we have language for this? To answer this, I will have to look for alternative ways to enter the subject and pose questions in different ways. A search for models of practice and theoretical foundations that may prove relevant to the rapidly changing contexts of managed environments encounters a rich literature that has engaged with the problems posed by the environmental pressures of population increase and technological development. However, as will be seen, existing conceptualisations encounter limits of abstraction. The implicit recognition of that has seen practitioners develop a wide range of approaches that are nearer to a recognition of actor perspectives in the field of environmental governance reform that more anthropological perspectives will highlight. A closer examination shows that abandoning abstraction in order to acknowledge the natural complexity of modern contexts in a post-modern time does not resolve the problem of constructively navigating changing knowledge systems. I therefore turn to post-structuralist thinking which allows me to give more attention to the social constructivist view and, in particul ar, to the co-constructed nature of knowledge, framing and subjectivities. The method that proves most promising to demonstrate and resolve the ambiguous nature of social knowledge is a dialectical approach to mapping the deliberative spaces of 21st century environmental governance reform. To do this work, perspectives from different disciplinary areas are brought together, including environmental sociology, environmental policy, anthropology, development studies, conservation management, political ecology and public policy. The discussion will seek to ‘ambiguate key notions in the society-nature literatures, that is, work with the ambiguity that becomes exposed when different scholarly worldviews are applied to core concepts of environmental governance. Working dialectically with the framings of theorists and practitioners means moving at different levels of extension, probing generalisation and rethinking subjects. This will show how ideas of nature, knowledge, community, and identity are central. The journey I will pursue in this chapter and effectively continue in the following transects key themes in the literature on environmental and development issues that I will not attempt to treat comprehensively a futile task even with the best of intentions but instead I want to trace insightful tensions and contours in the landscapes of academic, practitioners and subjective knowledges that shape the individual and institutional behaviour of social actors. By focussing on boundaries, and the conceptual or physical movement across these, I claim that I can show useful insights into the processes through which actors engage in participative, democratic spaces. By evoking a journey through the literature, I shadow the journey that I myself followed when I entered into and pursued this research, coming from a career as aid worker and encounter with the Great Barrier Island setting. Entering into academic reflection on social and political situations from that background opened perspectives that are not easily available to a researcher arriving from the outside or evaluating social processes with less reference to practical experience. At the same time, a positioning on the boundaries of the settings studied that my own background with the frequent geographic and career changes allowed, can be said to have greatly elevated my ‘hermeneutical horizon, opening up better appreciation of multiple, overlapping contexts. The aim of this chapter is to reveal a range of features and entry points into a number of settings that I gained access to, even if not comprehensively but certainly illustrative. I want to show that abstraction needs to adopt not only an actor-grounded and situated methodology but equally a more subjective theorisation, in order to give new meaning to abstraction. The literature I will bring into the discussion will help me elaborate how simultaneously seeking out top-down, bottom-up and reflective positions can give complementary insights into processes of actor engagement over environmental governance. The reason is that the political, social and cultural complexities that determine human-nature, and particularly society-nature, relations impose a need for multiple perspectives. In the following sections I will construct several positions located on metaphoric boundaries that offer perspective on subject areas and cultures of practice. To do that, I will open three views, or categories of view: one as a top-down view, which uses analytical thinking looking at overviews, comparisons and indicators to form structural explanations that underlie theory and practice. A second position approaches actors within a situation and is interested in narratives that convey the struggles and explanations present in a given situation, as they are seen from the bottom up. And with a view that is neither top-down, nor bottom-up, I want to emphasize a self-conscious, reflective treatment of knowledge and the co-construction of world views that deliberative practices can entail. 1.1.1 Case study or research intervention? The scholarly practitioner as participant in knowledge production Before I enter the subject area however, I must first clarify my point of entry into and positionality within the subject. In particular, the performative character of social science research needs to be acknowledged. Scientific inquiry is recognized as a social practice mediated contextually through symbolic means {Foucault, 2002; Pryke, Rose, Whatmore, 2003}. Sociological research has documented the extent to which science is as much a socio-cultural activity as a technical enterprise. The post-positivist challenge to the social sciences that was evoked by Fischer and quoted introductory chapter, derives from evidence that the elements of empirical inquiry from observation and hypothesis formation through data collection and explanation are grounded in often limited theoretical assumptions of the socio-cultural practices through which they are developed {Root, 1993}. Scientific explanations therefore have to be understood as explanations offered by specific communities of inquirers situated in particular places and times, so Fischer emphasizes (1998). These are discursive communities that are located alongside and intermeshed with other political communities in the social landscape. This draws attention to positioning researcher and science within the political communities that are present. Attention must be paid throughout the approach, engagement and interpretation of social situations to be reflective about the relation of the researcher to the subject. In my engagement with the actors within the settings I investigated, my approach and interest was shaped by all of my curriculum vitae but especially by my background as former aid worker. At least three specific aspects of this career were particularly significant in forming my approach to this study and, in particular, the lines of questioning that I adopted. For many years while working on behalf of large non-governmental aid organisations like Oxfam and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), when I was often assigned as project planner in collaboration with medical or logistics experts with the task to research the humanitarian, political and security context in a particular setting to identify priority needs an organisation was able to address and to design the detailed aid interventions. I led needs assessment missions lasting 2 to 4 weeks to Georgia, Tajikistan, Congo, Burundi, Syria, Iraq, and Nepal among others,. The output would consist of reports documenting findings of data collection and interviews, verbal and written interpretation of implications for launching aid operations, and proposals to governmental donor agencies that complied to institutional requirements and priorities in order to maximise chances of gaining funding support. Essentially this was a research role with an action orientation. My primary role while working for these international aid organisations was project manager and/or country representative, positions that I held in Russia. Chechnya, Congo, Kenya, Lebanon, and Mauritania among others. Aid projects would be managed by a team of expatriates and local staff, often growing into large, well-resourced and formalised organisations with up to 50 staff. This required me to manage teams and situations with a view to producing outcomes, conforming to organisational policies. As head of usually one of the larger NGOs in a sector, I would frequently also act on behalf of a wider community of aid agencies that shared similar values and objectives in collaborating and representing interests to government counterparts. The emphasis on advocating for universal rights and principles on behalf of vulnerable and victims under threat was an important advocacy priority for organisations like Oxfam and MSF, and thus was a critical rationale for situating, maintaining, and promoting many aid activities. At the same time I would be representing associations that had explicitly defined visions and principles in an organisational environment and so I had to be very self-conscious about the philosophical distinctions between advocacy, religious, purely charitable, bilateral or inter-governmental agencies. In other words, through this work I had been sensitized to the subtleties of organisational culture and its relationship to operational policies. In general, as a project manager I shared an outcome orientation that allowed me to identify with the role of other project managers in comparable organisational settings, even outside the domain international aid. The reason I found myself in a ten-year career as aid worker was in part due to a long-standing interest in foreign settings and the extensive time I had already spent living abroad. The familiarity with different cultures from growing up in the Middle East, emigrating during school years to New Zealand and working in several European countries not only opened my appreciation of how cultures and societies are distinguished but also permitted me to acquire conversational fluency in eight languages. Overhearing the words our interpreter used to translate my speech into Arabic for a group of village elders in a Sahel village, or joking with Russian militia officers to be able to enter an ethnic enclave in the Caucasus, added diverse points of view that only first-hand knowledge can make relevant to other situations. The value of knowing how language and cultural upbringing can shape world views, understanding and humour is invaluable when attempting to reflect on other situations from a position that is neither entirely inside nor outside but on the boundary between cultures and places that are in (dialectical) relation. 1.1.1.1 Adopting an inside-out view: focus on protagonist, on the relationship between identity and subject. While it is tempting to examine a situation from the point of view of those with the power to affect it the change makers and potential audience for the research findings it can be critical to also adopt the point of view of less influential actors. An inside out view seeks to show how outside forces influence the nature of polity, rather than using the people in the area of interest to provide a background against which to set the actions of outsiders {see also Routledge, Pacific History as seen from the Pacific Islands, Pacific Studies Spring 1985}. This study, in other words, seeks to be not merely island-centred but islander-oriented. The perspective thus adopted is that of a scholarly practitioner. Bentz and Shapiro {, 1998 #1684} use this term to recognise that in the enterprise of knowledge generation and critical reflection, there is a two-way relationship. The role of the scholarly practitioner involves â€Å"using professional practice and knowledge as a resource for the formulation and production of scholarly knowledge as well as for evaluating, testing, applying, extending, or modifying existing knowledge† (p. 66). Bentz and Shapiro stress that this requires also an awareness of the limits of knowledge, and, I would add, the contested nature of knowledge. This recognition brings attention to the production of knowledge in environmental politics. 1.1.1.2 Social science must be conscious of its performative character: Reconnecting the researcher with the researched There are a number of research traditions that address the ontological gap between researcher and the researched. Action research for one, is a participatory methodology that seeks to produce knowledge that emerges from context of action as a collaborative project between researcher and the researched. It typically sees the researcher performing functional roles within groups working together on real world projects and tasks (Wadsworth, 1998). Participatory research finds many other outlets and emphasizes a philosophy of co-production or research, from the formulation of the question, through reflection on outcomes to the communication of findings (Cornwall Jewkes, 1995). A methodology that seeks to discard theoretical preconceptions completely is grounded theory. Theories are grounded in the groups observable experiences, but researchers add their own insight into why those experiences exist. It is a method formulated by Strauss and Corbin that categorizes empirically collected data to build a general theory to fit the data (Barney G. Glaser, 2004; B.G. Glaser Strauss, 1967; A. McCarthy, 1999). The investigator develops conceptual categories from the data and then makes new observations to develop these categories. Hypotheses are derived directly from the data, and may be tested against it. All conclusions must be grounded in and supported by the data. Their seminal work, The Development of Grounded Theory (1967), moved researchers past the hypothesis-testing uses of raw data into the hypothesis-generating potential of their observations. The approach has been steadily expanding its reach within academia through sociology and social anthropology an d, more recently into applied disciplines like nursing and educational research. Notwithstanding the uptake of grounded philosophy by researchers motivated to reconnect with the empirical subject, the lack of theorizing underlying this may be criticized by more ‘sophisticated theorists like Habermas, who I later want to bring into this discussion. For the German, the lack of critical framing that grounded theory represents is a crucial shortcoming that needs to be addressed methodologically. I will begin this by first discussing methodological treatment of settings and context. 1.1.2 Accounting for context with mental models and ethnographic methods The cognitive patterns that underlie social behavior are not easily accessible to the researcher. Conceptualizing mental models that can account for communicative behavior in a way that relates to settings and context must represent basic notions of cognition such as ideology, knowledge and values. Ideologies in the sense used here, are general and abstract, principle based, axiomatic beliefs, while knowledge are the actual facts and beliefs held as true. Attitudes are taken to comprise opinion, beliefs, feelings, and intentions about specific issues, typically socially shared (see also Leiserowitz, Kates, Parris, 2006). A mental model then, is the categorical understanding constructed from ideologies, knowledge, and attitudes of specific contexts and situations. An accompanying notion is that of group knowledge as those social beliefs that which a group, or imagined community, holds to be true according to its own evaluation or verification (truth) criteria (eg science) and which can be doubted by outsiders. But such cultural, common ground knowledge is not challenged within groups, and is presupposed in public discourse, even when they are shifting as are the notions of conservation, environment and sustainability did that were discussed. 1.1.2.1 Context models as subjective representation To study context and its relation to subjective meanings, ethnographic approaches hold most promise as they work with subjective representation and group knowledge processes (e.g. Descola, 1996; Wolfe Yang, 1996). Such a view is also interested in how context structures social relations (communicative and interactional), social dynamics (group membership and interaction). But it also brings another interest relevant to the study of participation, of how cognition has a role in terms of framing goals, knowledge and other beliefs of participants in deliberation. The notion of context is used in scholarship as ambiguously as ‘environment is in wider discourses. To be able to treat it as an analytical object needs a basic model. By defining contexts and contextualization in terms of mental models and their role in discourse production and comprehension, this can account not only for the role of social representations such as attitudes and ideologies in discourse, but also allows a more subjective explanation of discourse and its variation in terms of personal mental models. The empirical studies will demonstrate this. Van Dijk (2001) sees context as a model of relevance that shapes actors opinions and actions. He recognizes that context is subjective and individual and with that is ideologically based and has coherence within group discourse. Thus, context models are subjective representations of social situation, including communicative events they define what is relevant. This makes an account of context critical for understanding participation. And subjective context framing may be ideologically biased. 1.1.2.2 Frames of referenceand the ‘black box of mental models The concept of frame of reference is also used commonly used to refer to the cognitive effect of contextual models (Swaffield, 1998). It describes and categorizes the attitudes displayed by individuals when discussing a management issue. The framing concepts in this study were defined as follows: A frame of reference is an analytical model of attitudes concerning a resource policy or management issue. A personal frame of reference refers to the attitudes expressed by an individual. A common frame of reference refers to the distinctive pattern of attitudes that is common to a number of individuals. However, there is no claim that the frame of reference as defined here represents cognitive processes. Rather, it is a model of the attitudes openly expressed by individuals when discussing an issue. A basic problem that remains, is that context, subjectivities and cognition remain inaccessible to a researcher. A ‘black box model of subjective context therefore lacks explanatory relevance. But as the subject of deliberation, context circumscribes the cognitive boundaries of actors ‘mentalities. For van Dijk (2001), the advantage of such an approach is that it accounts not only for the role of social representations, such as attitudes and ideologies in discourse, but also allows a more subjective explanation of discourse and its variation in terms of personal mental models. And since contexts are by definition unique and personal, context models of framings precisely allow an individual approach to contextualization to be combined with a more social one, in which shared representations, groups, and other societal aspects play a prominent role. 1.1.3 Boundaries: Locating and moving across by following, pushing or re-imagining phenomena ## I will begin with the premise that the totality of relations in a socio-ecological geography are meaningful, that is the relations between people, places and things. And that the inverse of relationships are distinctions that coalesce to form boundaries between categories and instances. This is worth emphasizing since the recognition that boundaries constrain meaning can draw attention to the contrived and therefore limiting nature of abstraction. How this premise will permit established abstraction and meanings to be questioned, fragmented and reassembled is the work that this chapter will begin and will be completed in the methodological chapter that follows. The first boundary to highlight and that can show what is meant by transgressing distinctions consists of the separation of human from non-human nature. Imagining environmental governance reform as regulating the entry of humans into nature and the export of non-human resources out of nature is counter-intuitive to any gardener. Fence lines, compost bins and patio seating all blur the boundaries. Self-identity for many derives from emotional attachments to home and garden, nurturing roles that a vegetable plot reinforces and status that manicured lawns or urban bio-diversity islands respectively can demonstrate. Thus the domain of interest should not be a non-human nature as an object of human intervention but instead a nature as a geography of human relations that are linked to an environment through diverse interests. This is a geography that is physically located in both the commons and in private property another paired abstraction that will prove to be divided by a blurred boundary. But this is also a geography that exists in the social imagination as social, cultural or political objects. The environment so seen can be conceived as the total of society-nature relations which relate to all material, subjective, cognitive, political, and other interests or dimensions. The challenge then becomes not in naming these complex relations but in thinking about them, in framing them. 1.1.4 Environmental governance as an adjustable lens [## develop] The first conceptual tool to prepare will thus be the notion of environmental governance as an adjustable lens. Rather than using the literature in an inevitably selective manner to stabilize the meaning of this concept at least for the duration of this discussion, I will adopt a counter-strategy of reinforcing the ambiguity of the notion and employing it with shifting meanings to approach the research problem from different scales, extension and perspectives. Environmental governance is a category of practices and ideas that are of interest to several perspectives. As a domain of practice it is the concern of academic text books (Durant, Fiorino, OLeary, 2004; Hempel, 1996; Kettl, 2002; Levy Newell, 2005) as much as ministerial policy statements {Ministry of the Environment 2000, 2003}, international donor policy, and publications of environmental agencies. In practice, actually relating good governance to ecological outcomes is near impossible. Choosing one arbitrary example from international experience, an in-depth evaluation of different forest management governance regimes in Madagascar showed how there were enormous difficulties in explaining the dynamics and assessing measures of sustainability and equity (McConnell Sweeney). The term of environmental governance can be encountered in a range of contexts. In a recent survey of issues in environmental policy and management Durant et al (ibid.) identify key topics in environmental governance as sustainability, the precautionary principle, common-pool resource theory, deliberative democracy, civic environmentalism, environmental justice, property rights, environmental conflict resolution, devolution, among others. This has introduced a range of perspectives from environmental economics, democratic theory, public policy, law, political science, and public administration. In effect, environmental governance does not so much represent a theoretical field or a professional discipline, but a theme of shared concerns in scholarship and applied practice. This chapter will consider how environmental governance can be re-approached by detaching it from the portfolio of resource managers and relocating it within a wider arena of development and democratic practices. In the development field the notion that the public, stakeholders or local people have an important role in environmental governance is emphasized. Environmental governance includes the structures (e.g. management regimes), organizational forms (e.g. farmer research teams, water user associations), processes (e.g. multi-stakeholder dialogue), actors and rules (e.g. negotiated access rights and boundaries) that determine how resources are managed at international, national and local levels. (International Development Research Centre) Aside from government agencies and development practitioners, scholars will also characterize contemporary environmental governanceas a â€Å"collaborative approach to policy formulation and implementation†(Durant et al., 2004, pp. 22-23). Environmental governance therefore is relevant to several different fields of interest to scholars and can be framed in several ways. In the first instance, environmental governance is political and so a subject of political inquiry. This opens up a diverse body of literature to employ in developing an approach to environmental governance. Another dimension that arises out of the political, and that the following discussion shows to be explicitly present, is deliberative democracy. But the most promising approach to begin to problematize environmental governance lies with the notion of development and its contemporary manifestation as sustainable development, particularly its application by foreign agents in local settings. Each of these dim ensions embodies unresolved tensions tensions that can also be encountered in many sites of social theory and practice which centre on epistemological concerns. It may also be useful to think in terms of environmental governance as a body of political theory, as Humphrey has done (2007), that has a central focus upon environmental concerns as these relate to democracy, justice, globalization, political economy, freedom, the welfare state, and other aspects of political life. This body of work is no longer as closely related to the environmental ethics and values of nature of a deep ecology, but is more integrated into mainstream political theory. For the purpose of this discussion, I will develop the notion of environmental governance as a conceptual tool to approach the research problem from different scales, extension and perspectives. The complementary notions of environmental governance offer entry points into related literatures and cultures of practice: Environmental Democracy, Environmental Reform, Environmental Collaboration, and Environmental Sustainability. Environmental governance can thus best be treated as both as assembly of practice and as a body of theory that is doing political work. To reconnect theory and practice will be the task of this chapter. 1.1.5 We are being ‘participated again: An incomplete typology of participative approaches There is an emerging consensus that the public need to be more involved in the processes of environmental decision making. From the international arena exemplified in documents such as Agenda 21 and the initiatives of the World Bank to national government policy initiatives, local policy and planning systems such as the New Zealand Resource Management Act, and in the discourses of actors including scientists and business groups, a role for public participation has been instituted (Davies, 2002). Implicit in the idea of participation is that the initiative lies with the reformers, the change-makers to approach the public with a project to respond to. From the perspective of an un-associated citizen, the prospect of another round of workshops and discussion groups events that have become familiar to many villagers in target zones of international aid the process is passive and invites the expression not surprisingly encountered in developing nations of ‘we are being participated again. The notion of taking part in environmental decision-making and in contrast to an authority taking top-down action is taken up by a wide range of terms and practices. Participation in the social science is an umbrella term including different means for the public to directly participate in political, economic, management or other social decisions. Participatory decision making then infers a level of proportionate decision making power and can take place along any realm of human social activity, including economic (e.g. participatory economics), political (e.g. participatory democracy), cultural (e.g. communalism) or familial (e.g. Feminism). In practice, the term participation applies to processes initiated by an agency seeking to initiate a project or introduce reform. It thus becomes critical to ask, who is invited to participate, and by whom. What regulatory requirements may apply, is there precedent, and what resources are available are only some of the parameters that the term participation by itself does not convey. In the government sector, at least in New Zealand, the word consultation is frequently used to describe a range of processes to engage with the community i.e. citizens and citizen associations. These range from the prescribed processes in the Local Government Act (2002) such as the special consultative procedure (section 83) to informal processes such as e-mail chat groups or anecdotal local knowledge. In this report, the term consultation will be used in a broad sense to include any form of government agency engagement with local communities, including activities carried out by an authority to inform itself of community views as well as specific consultation exercises. Collaboration is another category that carries the notion to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavour. The sense that will be used here, emphasises the absence of authority, a consensual decision making process with respect to an established domain. Dispute resolution is a related practice that seeks to reduce differences or to seek a solution when a conflict situation exists. When the services of a third party are utilized, this is often referred to as mediation. These categories denote some of the dimensions that structure relationships in public involvement: consultation as an exercise in information exchange, participation implying a direct input into deliberation over decisions linked to

Porter’s generic strategies Essay

Introduction Porter’s generic strategies of cost leadership, differentiation and focus can be (and often are) adopted by competitors in any given industry and can be provably successful in 21st century business. According to Porter: Effectively implementing any of these generic strategies usually requires total commitment and supporting organizational arrangements that are diluted if there is more than one primary target. . . . [These] generic strategies are approaches to outperforming competitors in the industry. Porter (1980: 35). Furthermore, Porter argues that â€Å"the firm failing to develop its strategy in at least one of the directions–a firm struck in the middle–is in an extremely poor position† and is doomed to essentially low profitability. Porter (1980: 41). In cost leadership situation an organization sets out to be the low-cost producer in its industry. It caters for many industry segments. If an organization can achieve and sustain overall cost leadership then it will achieve superior performance. Cost leadership can be obtained by focusing on key accounts, reaping economies of scale, controlling costs† (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). Main Body In order to achieve an proper competitive positioning and above average performance, Porter has proposed the following strategies which are termed as generic strategies: Cost leadership A differentiation strategy Focus strategy Cost leadership (attaining the lowest cost position) is clearly not within every firm’s ability to strive toward and attain. In fact, not more than one or two firms in any industry can give value arising predominately from cost-effective operations. By far the majority of firms succeed through the implementation of one of the other two strategies. Even in the case of supposed commodities, companies strive to raise other dimensions of value given to consumers rather than seeking just to compete on a cost basis. Mobil and Exxon are amongst the petroleum firms that attempt to position their gasoline as being superior in quality (anti-clog, non-freeze, etc.), additionally to which their service stations stock an increasing array of convenience items. Mercedes Benz focuses on the prestige and image-conscious end of the automobile market, while Toyota’s manufacturing efficiency gives it a cost and quality facilitator which is reinforced by its marketing wizardry. Combinations of these strategies are also probable, as when instant oil change (focus) specialists look to establish a low-cost position due to the high volume of business generated by a sensible response to customer’s minor automobile service needs. The cost leadership strategy frequently requires a `lean’ culture and is usually perceived as `unattractive’ with the constant focus on cost management and efficiency. A leaning to be production or operations led therefore emerges. This produces a concentration on standardization of products, components as well as processes with the minimization of variations/derivatives. A fine balance needs to be attained between maintaining a contracted range of products/services and meeting the varying needs of diverse customer groups. It is these tensions between either giving a differentiated approach to match customer require and gain competitive advantage, or pursuing cost leadership to gain profit margin and value advantage, that frequently leads in practice to a mixed approach. This means that the advantages of neither competitive position are attained. This being `stuck in the middle’ yields no competitive advantage and corrodes the position of the business unit. Differentiation would involve an organization in providing something unique to its target customers. The uniqueness can be related to products, the way it delivers its goods and services, the way it markets its products or anything that shapes a customer’s perception in relation to differentiation. This could be the way products and services are branded or designed and the customers perceive such offerings as unique† (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). The differentiation strategy is often the most `attractive’ in that it gives the opportunity for a more resourceful approach to the market. For this reason the organization tends to be marketing led. It is fundamental in these business units that the cost/benefit analysis of any new type of differentiation is thoroughly evaluated. In addition, sensitivity analysis should be used to look at the capability of the associated cost base at different levels of sales performance and in diverse market conditions. The primary challenge with differentiation is one of competitor replication, where the benefit is temporary and, once replicated, becomes an increase in the industry/market cost base for all competitors. This growing migration of the cost base can over time destroy an attractive market segment. According to Grant (1991): â€Å"Differentiation is different from segmentation. Differentiation is concerned with how the firm competes — in what ways the firm can proffer uniqueness to its customers. Such exclusivity might relate to consistency (McDonalds), dependability (Federal Express), status (American Express), quality (Marks & Spencer), and innovation (Sony). Segmentation, in terms of market segment choices is concerned with where the firm competes in terms of consumer groups, localities and product types†. Whereas segmentation is a feature of market structure, differentiation is a strategic choice by a firm. A segmented market is one that can be partitioned according to the characteristics of customers and their demand. Differentiation is concerned with a firm’s positioning within a market or a segment in relation to the product, service and image characteristics that influence customer choice†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). Michael Porter also has addressed the issues of competitive advantage in relation to the nations. In his book ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations’ (1990), Porter’s view has an impact in relation to global competition and consequently global marketing. He puts forward a view that national conditions influence a firm’s competitive advantage in globally competing industries. Then comes focus strategy that â€Å"involves an organization being selective in terms of the segments it wants to serve and focusing on these segments to the exclusion of other segments. The focus strategy can either be cost focus or differentiation focus. If an organization does not choose generic strategies it wants to focus on then as Porter puts it, it will be ‘stuck in the middle’. The extent to which a generic strategy can be sustainable will depend on competitors’ behavior and action. The organization constantly has to be a step ahead of its competitors† (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). Porter’s generic strategies are based on the competitive methods and possibility of the organization, both of which compromise its strategy. His recommendations have perceptive appeal. Unfortunately, Porter does not cite any contributing literature in the development of his typology. It is also unfortunate that Porter’s deductively derived typology was not convoyed by an attempt to validate its contents empirically. However, separate research efforts have been directed at subjecting Porter’s conceptualized typology to empirical verification. One of the first empirical tests of Porter’s hypothesis was conducted by Dess and Davis, who examined 22 firms in the paint and related products industry (Dess and Davis, 1984). A total of 78 executives from these firms completed questionnaires by representing the importance of 21 competitive variables (Woo and Cool, 1983). The resulting correlation matrix of this distinctiveness was subjected to factor analysis to isolate the competitive dimensions linked with Porter’s three generic strategies. The principal factor solutions hold three elements that were matched against Porter’s generic strategies. A panel of seven academicians was then surveyed to establish the importance of each competitive means for each of the generic strategies. Overall, general agreement was attained between the panel’s definition of cost leadership and differentiation and that resultant via the factor analysis. However, disagreement existed over the panel’s idea of focus strategy and that which was labeled through the beginning. So as to differentiate firms according to discrete patterns of strategic behavior, Dess and Davis entered the factor scores of each firm into a group algorithm. Performance data (return on assets and annual sales growth) were provided for 15 of these firms. The authors observed four separate clusters, of which three were hold as pursuing distinct generic strategies (cost leadership, differentiation, or focus). They labeled the fourth cluster â€Å"stuck in the middle.† Return on assets for both the cost leadership and differentiation strategies were considerably higher than that generated by the â€Å"stuck in the middle† strategy, lending some support to Porter’s argument that generic strategies produce superior performance. However, the focus cluster was also shown to have the lowest profitability, signifying that Dess and Davis’s results were not conclusive. The authors also raised questions concerning interpretation of factor scores, given concerns they had with the constancy of factor loading in the sample set. The study is also limited in that it implicated only one industry. In a separate study, White examined 69 business units from 12 different businesses from the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies (PIMS) data base in order to determine the â€Å"proper† organizational requirements approved for Porter’s three generic strategies (White, 1986). A differentiation strategy was operationalized by high relative cost and price, whereas a cost leadership strategy was distinct by low relative price and cost. The organizational â€Å"context† of the business unit was operationalized along three dimensions: autonomy, frequency of reports/reviews, and functional coordination. Performance was determined according to return on investment (ROI), real sales growth, relative market share, and cash flow from investment. By statistically comparing different organizational characteristics, White was capable to demonstrate that businesses within a common strategy class had similar organizational contexts within the overall corporation. For businesses that followed a cost leadership strategy, higher ROIs were linked with low autonomy and more frequent reviews and measures of performance. For businesses following differentiation strategies, higher ROIs were linked with an opposite set of interorganizational characteristics. These results were reliable with Porter’s contention (Porter, 1980). However, when White employed other measures of performance (for instance, real sales growth), the previously mentioned relationships did not always hold. In addition, the combination strategy of both low cost and differentiation produced the highest overall ROI results and higher real growth consequences than a simple pure cost strategy. This suggests that, differing to Porter’s hypothesis, some successful businesses follow a combination of two or more â€Å"generic† strategies concurrently. Another study based on testing Porter’s hypothesis was performed by Woo and Cool. The primary aim of this study was to contrast the performance of Porter’s differentiation and cost leadership strategies with non-generic strategies. The study concentrated on domestic manufacturing businesses over the period from 1976 to 1979 and used the PIMS data base. Woo and Cool chose relative price and cost as representative of the major dimensions that reflect Porter’s differentiation as well as cost leadership strategies. Performance was represented by four factors: return on investment, real sales growth, relative market share, and cash flow to investment. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure was performed that designated mixed results for the generic strategies. According to Woo and Cool, â€Å"In all cases, non-generic strategies as a group seem to achieve as well as the generic strategies.† (Woo and Cool, 1983, 17). These results seem to corroborate those findings of White. In addition, the use of discriminant analysis recognized differences in the functional components of Porter’s two generic strategies and revealed that (1) differentiation strategy was recognized with higher product quality and product R&D and (2) cost leadership was linked with lower discretionary spending and a heavy emphasis on forward integration. In all, Woo and Cool’s conclusions challenged two aspects of Porter’s hypothesis, namely, that generic strategies produce superior performance and that the useful components of particular generic strategies are static and deductively particular The generic strategies make the postulation that the company intends to persist in a concentration mode, that is, limit its horizons to a single product/service or attain a predominant portion of its sales in one industry. Few large or medium size firms confine their product horizons. Characteristically it is small businesses that start with such a focus. With success and growth usually comes a desire to reduce dependence on any one product/market. Diversified firms have more established sales and earnings. Risk reduction unquestionably helps improve shareholder value. Most firms have historically been uncomfortable about â€Å"sticking to their knitting† lest they knit a sweater that’s no longer in style or that someone else can make at half the price (perhaps with a machine they’ve just invented). The unwillingness to place all one’s eggs in one basket is quite comprehensible since it could result in binding the company’s future to just one product, a product that might be rendered obsolete or alternated by alternate products. Also, competitors could prove to be more competent at value formation by identifying the desired components of value more accurately or delivering them more efficiently. Continuous value enhancement in a single product area is positively laudable, but prudence dictates that other stakeholders’ needs (shareholders, employees, creditors, and suppliers, for instance) also be taken into thought. Diversification is an important strategy in assuring that the needs of a diversity of stakeholders are given careful enough attention to merit their strong support. Moreover, expanding the product as well as market scope of the firm widens its range of customers, providing even more opportunities for delivering value in completely novel ways. Diversification has, of late, come under fire for being the reason of many firms’ declining ability to compete with domestic and foreign rivals. It is, however, conglomerate diversification that distracts a firm from its work of value. When a firm has numerous product and service offerings, few of which have any association to each other, the objective becomes to exploit shareholder value (stock price and/or dividend). Commitment to a product line or to its customers is noticeably absent at the corporate level. Conglomerates not simply keep their eggs in different baskets, they often forget where their baskets are! On the other hand, concentrically diversified firms–General Electric, Matsushita, Procter and Gamble, IBM, and Honda, to name a few–seek new product or market opportunities with a view to ongoing their prior success in value creation. IBM, for instance, has excelled at providing engineering, installation, maintenance and other types of services to customers. This source of value has been deliberately developed and maximized regardless of whether the product is a mainframe computer, a microcomputer or peripheral equipment. Procter and Gamble, whether in consumer non-durables or in its more recent food/pharmaceutical ventures has, certainly, always been known for its clear conceptualization and faultless construction of value? However, its capability to unerringly communicate the value inhabiting in its products–through timely and well-planned distribution, superb promotion, and rapid assimilation of customer comments-is what enables P & G to exploit value in its erstwhile as well as new product areas. Thus, Porter three generic strategies are alternative, workable approaches to dealing with the competitive forces.†Ã‚   However, the uniqueness of Porter’s cost, differentiation, and focus strategies has been empirically supported by Dess and Davis, White, and Woo and Cool. These same researchers have also suggested that various combinations of these strategy taxa (cost, differentiation, focus) often result in superior performance. Here, the central matter is focused on the proper level of abstraction in conceptualizing generic strategies. As such, cost, differentiation, and focus (or their derivatives) have been equally viewed as representative of lower levels of concept and as such are more appropriately measured as strategy â€Å"types† or â€Å"strategic factors† that in combination make up the taxa or composite strategies. Conclusion Porter’s generic strategies can be linked directly to the competitive positioning strategy. Product specialization, high-quality offerings, and product innovation are all derivatives of Porter’s differentiation strategy; the combination strategy type recognized in this study relates to Porter’s cost and differentiation strategies. Porter also suggests four strategic alternatives in global industries: broad line global competition, global focus, national focus, and protected niche. These broad patterns resemble aspects of the internationalization dimension. For instance, the domestic strategy type identified in this study is closely linked to Porter’s national focus strategy. Porter also does not mention either exporting or mixed international strategy types. Porter has yet to differentiate fully his conceptualization of global strategy in terms of internationalization and competitive positioning. Indeed, his own perspectives of global strategy seem to have matured with time, perhaps as a consequence of mounting criticism leveled against his cost/differentiation generic strategies. To Porter, the essence of a global strategy can be captured through strategic focus. Yet by defining global industries throughout international parameters, it becomes imperative to determine both whether and how member businesses are in fact competing internationally. Later Porter expands his earlier conceptualization of global strategy by defining it as â€Å"one in which a firm seeks to gain competitive advantage from its international presence through either concentrating configuration, coordination among dispersed activities, or both.† (Porter 1986a: 20) With this definition, global strategy is no longer portrayed as just a function of the one-dimensional geographic experience captured by strategic focus. Rather, it is reflected in the essence of internationalization captured in this study. Porter has always faced a complex challenge subordinating his own four–largely internationalization–strategy types to his leading generic strategies. Indeed, by identifying global strategies through predominantly internationalization, Porter is seen implicitly supporting an agreeing strategic emphasis on both competitive positioning and internationalization. For instance, a broad-line global competitor will compete either on the basis of low cost or differentiation. Thus, cost and differentiation are dimensions of a global strategy, and the same a global strategy is rooted in cost or differentiation advantages. Work Cited Dess G., and Davis P. ( 1984). â€Å"Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic groups’ membership and organizational performance†. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 467-488. Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, Spring, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 114-135. Kim, Eonsoo, Dae-il Nam and J.L. Stimpert (2004) ‘The Applicability of Porters GenericStrategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and Suggestions’ Journal of Management, 30:5, 569–589 Millar, D. (1992), ‘The Generic Strategy Trap’, Journal of Business Strategy, 13, 37–41. Parnell, John A. (2006) ‘Generic strategies after two decades: a reconceptualization of competitive strategy’, Management Decision, 44:8, 1139–1154 Parnell, John A. and Lewis Hershey ‘The strategy-performance relationship revisited: the blessing and curse of the combination strategy’, International Journal of Commerceand Management, 15:1, 17–33. Porter M. ( 1986a). â€Å"Changing patterns of international competition†. California Management Review, 28, 9-40. Porter M. E. ( 1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press. Sultan Kermally; Gurus on Marketing Thorogood, 2003 White R. ( 1986). â€Å"Generic Business Strategies, organizational context and performance: An empirical investigation†. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 217-231. Woo C., and Cool K. ( 1983). Porter’s (1980) generic competitive strategies: A test of performance and functional strategy attributes. Working paper, Purdue University.

The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell - 692 Words

Imagine you, a well known hunter, are stranded on a humid, tropical island with no wildlife other than a psychotic man. This psychopath is a fellow hunter, but desires to poach even greater and smarter game with extremely high intelligence, and is the smartest animal of all -- humans. Throughout the story, the author creates a suspenseful mood through several conflicts the main character encounters, while struggling to survive the â€Å"most dangerous game.† In Richard Connell’s short adventure story, â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game,† Rainsford, a hunter, travels to South America on a hunting expedition, when he carelessly falls off his yacht and into the Caribbean Sea. Struggling to find a place to rest, he swims to an island off in the distance. Upon reaching the island, he comes across a large building where he is warmly welcomed by the owner of the establishment, also a renowned hunter, named General Zaroff, only to find that he is a lunatic. After learning of General Zaroff’s sins, Rainsford is challenged by the general in a game of life and death, and their specialty, hunting. From beginning to end, the author of this short survival story creates a suspenseful mood through the three main conflicts the main character encounters. To begin with, the author develops a person versus nature conflict. After Sangar Rainsford’s, the main character, failed attempt to retrieve his cigar, he falls off his yacht that was headed to South America on a hunting expedition. RainsfordShow MoreRelatedThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell1398 Words   |  6 Pages Richard Connell s short work of fiction â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game† blurs the line between humans and animals and explores some of the causes of fear, especially the primal fear of being hunted. Appropriately, it is a suspense-driven work and relies heavily on the use of certain techniques to make sure the reader feels, or at least understands, the terror that the protagonist Sanger Rainsford feels. In the narrative, two techniques are combined to create suspense: careful use of foreshadowing createsRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell908 Words   |  4 Pagesscreenplay for a movie called High Noon; a classic tale of when the hunter becomes the hunted. Then in 1924, Richard Connell wrote another classic, called The Most Dangerous Game. Although both stories demonstrate similar examples of the setting and conflict, the main characters react very differently to the unusual situations they find themselves stuck in. High Noon and The Most Dangerous Game share many similarities throughout the text. For example the setting. Both stories do a great job of displayingRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell1003 Words   |  5 Pagesuneventful; many people need suspense and drama to feel motivated and engaged in things; this is the same for books. In the book, â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game†, by Richard Connell, the author used various literature methods to create suspense; the techniques he includes are used differently depending on which part of the plot they are used in.  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the story, Richard Connell uses imagery words to create a setting for the story. In turn, the setting gives readers an idea in regards to what is to happen laterRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell1008 Words   |  5 PagesWhenever you hear the word evil or immoral, what pops up into your head? The character General Zaroff from a story called â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game† written by Richard Connell pops up into my head. General Zaroff is a man who lives on an island called Ship-Trap Island. Zaroff proves his immorally so many ways in the story. He lures sailors onto this island by using a bright light to trap them into a fake cannel, kidnaps the sailors, and then hunts them. Zaroff is an evil person who kills humansRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell828 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"The Most Dangerous Game,† written by Richard Connell in 1924, was made into a movie in 1932. While transitioning the story to a movie, changes were mad e to the plot. The three changes from the short story to the film version of â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game† include the setup, the characters, and the game. These changes were made to make it possible to be filmed and to amuse the audiences. In the story, it starts off with Rainsford on a yacht with his friend Whitney. They are headed to Ship-Trap IslandRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell1318 Words   |  6 Pagesmethod Richard Connell uses to create suspense in â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game† is slowing down the exposition with the purpose of dragging it out and creating a pace that keeps the reader waiting in a prolonged state of suspense. For example, on page 9, Rainsford stumbles upon the chateau after washing up on Ship-Trap island where he is greeted by its owner, saying â€Å"‘It is a very great pleasure to welcome Mr. Sanger Rainsford, the celebrated hunter, to my home...I am General Zaroff.’† Connell is usingRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell857 Words   |  4 Pages Richard Connell, the author of â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game,† used the setting in different functions through perseverance in his short story. One of the most critical elements of plot used in this story was suspense. In â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game,† the setting was used to create this, especially through water and foreshadowing. At the very beginning of the story, Whitney, Rainsford’s hunting partner, tells him that the nearby island was called â€Å"Ship-Trap Island.† This foreshadowing leads to a moreRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell852 Words   |  4 PagesRichard Connell’s 1924 short story titled â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game† is widely considered a masterfully dark work of short fiction, one that pulls the reader into surreal and chilling circumstances. Through his narrative, Connell provokes both intellect and emotion as he asks questions at the very core of human existence, questions concerning morality and ethics as understood by the modern individual. What is the value of human life? Does power justify action? With his macabre tone, Connell takesRead Mor eThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell1360 Words   |  6 PagesYen Nguyen Mr. Crockwell English Acc 1p: Period 1 24 September 2017 The Most Dangerous Essay Underestimation and cruel actions lead to many things. In â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game,† author Richard Connell reveals a conflict between the main characters, General Zaroff and Rainsford. Rainsford was to play the most dangerous game created by Zaroff, because the only way to survive, is to win it, otherwise death is the only other option. As demonstrated through the use of personification, symbolism, andRead MoreThe Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell Essay1033 Words   |  5 PagesIn many stories, there exist antagonists that cause a conflict. The author emphasizes this in two stories, â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game† and â€Å"The Lady and the Tiger† where their descriptions include craze and evil. The short story, â€Å"The Most Dangerous Game†, by Richard Connell, tells about a stranded man, Rainsford and his meeting of General Zaroff, who believes he possesses the right to kill other humans. The short story, â€Å"The Lady or the Tiger†, by Frank R. Stockton tells of how a king uses â€Å"fate†

Context Clues and Literacy ESL Reading Lesson

One of the main challenges of any English reading skills class is that students tend to look up, or even insist on looking up, each word they do not understand. While this desire to understand everything is certainly laudable, it can be damaging in the long run. This is because students will begin to tire of reading if they are constantly interrupting the process to find another word in the dictionary. Of course, the use of e-readers might make this a little less bothersome. However, students need to realize that reading in English should be like reading in their own language. The use of contextual clues can be one of the best ways to improve students reading skills. Realizing that a text can be understood in a general sense by using contextual clues can go a long way towards helping students cope with increasingly difficult texts. At the same time, the use of contextual clues can also provide a means by which students can rapidly increase their existing vocabulary base. This lesson provides a number of pointers helping students identify and use context to their advantage. A worksheet is also included which helps students recognize and develop the skill of contextual understanding. Context Clues Reading Lesson Aim: Increased awareness and usage of contextual reading clues Activity: Awareness raising concerning the use of contextual clues, followed by worksheet practicing contextual reading Level: Intermediate/upper intermediate Outline Write this example sentence on the board: Tom decided that he desperately needed the glockum if he were to solve the problemAsk students what they do if they are reading an English text and do not understand a specific word.Ask students what they do if they are reading a text in their native language and do not understand a specific word.Ask students what glockum means.Once students have established that they dont know what a glockum is, ask them to guess at what it might be.Ask students what part of speech a glockum is (i.e. verb, noun, preposition etc.)Have students explain how they arrived at their guesses, which clues did they use?Explain the concept of reading in chunks i.e. looking at the text surrounding the unknown word for clues.Show them an article from an advanced level magazine (Wired, National Geographic, The Economist, etc.)Ask students to identify the probable vocabulary areas that may be used in the example article.Explain the importance of activating vocabulary by fi rst quickly glancing at the text to be read. This idea is very important as the brain will begin to focus on related concepts thus preparing the student for what is to be read.Point out that by using all of these clues (i.e. chunking, part of speech, logical deduction, vocabulary activation), students can arrive at a much fuller understanding of difficult texts — even if they do not understand each wordHave students divide into small groups and complete worksheets. Reading Clues Deduction: What does the sentence concern? Which words does the unknown word seem to relate to?   Part of Speech: Which part of speech is the unknown word? Is it a verb, noun, preposition, adjective, time expression or something else? Chunking: What do the words around the unknown word(s) mean? How could the unknown word(s) relate to those words? This is basically deduction on a more local level. Vocabulary Activation: When quickly skimming through the text, what does the text seem to concern? Does the layout (design) of the text give any clues? Does the publication or type of book give any clues to what the text might be about? Which words can you think of that belong to this vocabulary category? Make logical guesses about the meaning of the unknown words in the following paragraph. Jack quickly entered the didot and cleaned the various misturaes he had been using to repair the wuipit. He had often thought that this job was extremely yullning. However, he had to admit that this time things seemed to be a bit easier. When he finished, he put on his redick and went back to the study to relax. He took out his favourite pipe and settled into the beautiful new pogtry. What a fantastic schnappy he had made when he had bought the pogtry. Only 300 yagmas! What could a didot be?What part of speech is misturaes?If Jack used the misturaes to repair the wuipit what do you think the mistraes must be?What could yulling mean? What part of speech is often used with an ending -ing ?Which synonym could be used for yulling ? (fun, difficult, expensive)What type of things do you put on?Based on the above question, what kind of thing must a redick be?Is a pogtry used inside or outside?Which words let you know that the pogtry was cheap?What must yagmas be? (clothes, cigarette type, type of money)